A very late and un-timely review by myself / Let The Right One In - Film Analysis

[Dietz]

It is now (2025) nearly 20 years ago when filming started in winter 2006/07. By now the casting of Oskar and Eli was, if not already in motion, probably at least in it's initial phase. I can remember watching this little gem in cinema in 2008. I was quite impressed of this well done movie and happy at that, as it doesn't happen very often. (Personally i consider 90% of the global entertainment industry output as rubbish. Or maybe i'm just spoiled.) Anyway, i coincidentally re-watched it this year and was again fascinated, even more so than way back. I started digging a little for the usual extras, deleted scenes, behind the scenes and that is how i found you - The Infected. And i thought: well why not contribute a little? Usually i don't do this, but I like it here, it is a nice little place to find interesting stuff and read different opinions and views. So, why not add something, maybe even something new and helpful for the fellow infected.
And in this context i have to kind of apologize for the sprawling text. Initially i had not intended to write so much, but as i kept going i always felt like there was still something missing. When i went to bed in the evening i always thought a little about the plot and every time i found some more. Especially the dynamic development of our two little heroes was and is, for some strange reasons, absent in most of the reviews i red. Which i find very odd as this is the actual heart of the movie. So i kept going ... and now you have to read all of this. It's mandatory. Like you have to cry every time you watch this movie.
Greetings to Wolfchild, the anchor of this forum - this is especially for you.


I did not see that link anywhere here. Maybe it is of interest: https://www.svenskfilmdatabas.se/en/ite ... emid=63205#



Classification

The categorization of the film, as with all films in general, is mostly only of cinematheque interest. Useful only at the beginning for the unknowing, searching audience or nitpicking critics. For the fundamental discussion and reception of the material, a prior or premature classification can actually sometimes be more counterproductive than helpful. Later on it can become quite essential.
Nevertheless, we want to try it for the sake of completeness and for a possible better understanding later.
In purely thematic terms, the film can be seen as a fairy tale variation, or as an emotional/love study with fantasy elements. Most likely as a mixture of both. In addition it has elements of a puzzle theme, that means the viewer is given individual puzzle pieces, which at the end more or less provide an explanation of the supernatural events. This is part of the suspense that runs through the film. If you've watched the film many times the puzzle theme becomes - of course - increasingly irrelevant.
Fairy tale variations include all films from fantasy to science fiction, classic fairy tales, legends, myths etc. This of course also includes the vampire theme, which is deliberately treated in a stepmotherly and sparingly manner in this movie, but in general the film fulfills the requirements: "Prince and Princess" find each other, in the end the evil ones are defeated and both live happily ever after.
The puzzle theme generally includes all content that is fully or partially dedicated to solving a mystery that is more or less solved at the end (as in the classic detective story, for example). It is part of almost all contemporary work and mostly used to create suspense. This is also the case here, at least as far as to the questions which are possibly arising in the young "prince" (and the unwitting viewer) regarding his future "princess" and her nightly activities. The mysterious deaths are left in the dark (just for the in-film public) for understandable reasons. But classifying the film as a pure fairy tale variant would not do it justice.
To see it as an interpersonal study (with fantasy framework), as a close-up of a developing children friendship/relationship is more obvious. Statistically the film spends most of it's time (almost 40%) with the two main protagonists alone. The school scenes (14%), scenes with parents (5%) and the vampire theme together with cut scenes and stills (29%) only form the background, the contrast, the necessary vehicle to support and understand the development of the characters. It is precisely for this reason that we will primarily deal with the two children here and largely ignore all peripheral characters and the fantasy theme. (The remaining 17% are other breaks, intro and outro, etc.).

If you take the trouble to completely ignore the vampire theme, it becomes clear that screenwriter and director had relatively little interest in it. And in fact, the additional - and in their view superfluous - material that was plentiful in the book, was largely ignored. They were not interested in deepening the peripheral characters or embellishing the vampire theme. This would have significantly damaged the actual goal and depth of the film. Fortunately, balance was achieved very well here. Especially in regard to the fantasy elements the reduction was beneficial.
Far more important to them was the portrayal of the character- and relationship development of the two child outsiders at the still, usually asexual, pre-pubescent age of "around" twelve years. This is precisely what gave them the opportunity to develop a relationship free of any disruptive hormonal influences and thus against a credible, platonic and innocent background.
In any case, the story manages to maintain the right balance between ideal and reality, fairy tale and truth and not to neglect either side.
The fantasy lover has it easiest - he watches the film from beginning to the happy ending.
If, on the other hand, a more realistic approach is preferred, we subtract the fantasy elements and end the film a little earlier. The key scene (the first "fake ending" as the director calls it) in this case would be the farewell scene, the taxi driving away carrying the boy's great love and leaves him devastated or the following morning scene at the window. For this version a few alternative explanations would be needed: the androgynous vampire becomes an androgynous girl/boy, her companion becomes a relative or guardian or something similar. One could also logically explain his disappearance (accident), the girls departure (relatives) and her very puzzling absence from school (illness). The neglected appearance of the apartment and her obvious social isolation could be due to poverty. But we don't want to go too far with speculation. After all the director doesn't make it particularly difficult for us to choose between a fantasy fairy tale and a possible love story that can be explained strictly logically.



Dramatization and presentation

Let us limit this to a few interesting points. There are already excellent contributions (Kudos to Wolfchild) on certain aspects in the movie, i.e. the special role of hands (a must read), the moral assessment of the characters and the meaning of surfaces as symbolic dividers or communication channels (walls, doors, windows).
The inherent tension in the film is based on the continuous threat to the two main actors (class pupils, daylight, being discovered), on the threatening backdrop of the mysterious/inexplicable acts of violence, the black/white and indifferent environment and, last but not least, on the developing relationship between the two children and thus also the gradual initiation of the boy into the nature and world of the girl (and vice versa). In this respect, a purely realistic depiction of the material would be at a disadvantage, as part of the tension is generated by the fantasy aspect.
The director has concentrated his attention in particular (and fortunately, I think) on the main actors and their development. The audiovisual restraint of the long, intimate sequences gives every word, every movement, every sound and every small detail considerable weight. The short, concise dialogues contrast with the long and calm close-ups, which form the heart of the film. He artfully uses a cold, black and white, indifferent and passive/threatening environment to make the main characters appear all the more lively and clear. Even the few violent scenes mainly serve to counteract the interpersonal core scenes besides advancing the necessary vampire framework. Nearly all supporting characters are portrayed in a rather passive-static manner in order to give the main plot as much attention as possible. The film is mostly shown from the boy's perspective.


Initial situation
The blond boy with green eyes, shines bright and pure like sunlight. The constantly flowing crystal-clear nasal mucus glistens in the sun. He is innocent, trustful, warmhearted, vulnerable, always neatly dressed and clean. But right from the start we can see: there is something wrong with him. When he is alone he acts like a freak, attacking invisible foes with his knife. Maybe not so innocent after all.

The androgynous creature, for the sake of simplicity we will call it a girl (the director's actual intention, I believe), has black hair, large, dark eyes and an unusual deep voice for her age. She appears tough, intimidating, self-confident and is apparently unaffected by cold. She looks run down and creepy: dirty fingernails, smeared mouth, strange body odor, visibly used, dirty and oversized clothing. Something's wrong with her too.


Dynamic development of the main characters and their relationship
As the story unfolds we learn more and more about the two. Both are clearly outsiders, lonely, hurt and looking for company, human warmth, affection. (Key scenes with the boy right at the beginning of the film and towards the end - the hand on the window pane as a symbol of the longed-for contact - contrasting with the dark and cold outside world in the background.) For the girl (thank you PeteMork for reminding me) it's a very similar situation (right after the acid scene) with her literally begging on her knees in front of the wall that divides her from the boy.

The film often contrasts with the colors red, white and black. The director assigned the color red a special role in the film. Of course, we see a lot of red blood again and again as a symbol of violence and as "lifeblood" for the girl, but various important things or people are also marked in red. Here are just a few concise examples:
Virginia, the fun-loving girlfriend of Lacke, is permanently seen in shades of red, as is her apartment. This changes dramatically after she herself becomes a vampire and subsequently suicidal.
The red sweater of the girl's aide, the red jacket of the boy's father.
And last but not least, the girl herself. And here we have to go into a little more detail. Especially with her as a main protagonist, the red theme and the related fashionable appearance are treated in much more detail and nuance - in line with her further development and the change in her relationship with the boy. While she appears in grey-brown clothes at the very beginning, this changes over the course of the story.

1st meeting - in front of the house
Girl: unkempt appearance - unwashed hair, light shirt - half buttoned, strange pants ("Psycho Pants" - as per director), oversized brown shoes
He immediately starts a conversation. The girl pretends to reject the boy, after betraying herself by giving away that she already knows where he lives. In this way their roles are clear right in the beginning. He is straightforward - she is cautios, but interested.
(little filming detail: Lina comes towards Kåre, stumbles in the snow, but catches herself again. The same time, he tenses up involuntarily as if he intends to catch her. This adds to the kindness of the character he's playing.)

2nd meeting - in front of the house
Girl: looks the same as at the first meeting. The boy notices her strange smell.
This is where the first real contact takes place via the cube as a catalyst and communication device. At the first exchange the cube shows many colors. She gives it back to him without changing anything to symbolize her questioning reluctance. He finishes the white side and this side is shown while he is handing it over to her again, to indicate his pure intentions.
The next morning he finds the perfectly solved cube in front of the house (the director describes that as a "promise" to him). He understands and is visibly happy, the whole day he can't get his eyes off the cube.

3rd meeting - in front of the house
Girl: washed hair, obviously better smell, matching short-sleeved light sweater, the same pants and shoes. Here she is shown right from the start as an expectant, happy little "princess" (legs crossed) on her throne. Her entire behavior is much more positive and interested (she moves even closer to the boy). The cube is constantly shown from its red side in this encounter, as a symbol of the tender contact, the first glimmer of friendship.

4th meeting - in front of the house
Girl: similar appearance, but now instead of the light sweater she is wearing a small cardigan with pink stripes held together with a safety pin (my personal favorite). Pink is the first subtle color hint of her feelings towards the boy. At this meeting, Morse code is agreed upon as a means of communication through the shared - previously separating - house wall. He talks to her about very delicate, intimate things (school torture) that he would never tell anyone else. A sign of trust, indicating the deepening friendship. She gives him advise and promises to help, if needed.

5th meeting - at the "Candy Store"
Girl: looks like the previous meeting. (Unfortunately, a nice but deleted "bulleribock" scene is missing here in which both are sitting together on a pile of snow and another "hand tale" occurs during a child's game. Playful romping is implied.) The candy scene is, as the director says, her "first sacrifice" for the boy, to make it clear to him that some things are different with her. The scene where she first refuses his offer and then taking one candy anyway to put in her mouth in order to show him the resulting implications is near to perfection. Him embracing her (incidentally one of the greatest embraces in film history, here I agree with the director) stands for his affirmation of her offered friendship, his appreciation of her self-imposed suffering in order to show him her affection. Her question (probably important for many "real" girls) is answered positive and without hesitation: "Would you like me if I wasn't a girl?" Both begin to understand that they have found someone special.

6th meeting - in the boy's room/bed
The girl's clothing is insignificant here, although one can guess what she's wearing. She takes them off early in the encounter and requests the boy to close his eyes or look away respectively. In a way she is in a disadvantaged situation at the beginning: she just lost her follower. She doesn't mourn him but now she is on her own and this makes the boy her only remaining confidant. He does not know it at this point, but she probably relies on his generosity and affection more than before. And he does not disappoint - of course he lets her in and is very tactful in casually brushing off her question about her "disgusting" cold body. Unexpected for her, he asks her to become his girlfriend. And for the second time that evening he shows persistent determination: he completely ignores her quite important objection that she is not a girl.
As she is covered by a blanket the familiar clothing "color code" couldn't be used. Instead the girls face, which is her only visible body part for most of the scene, is blushing (additionally her mouth is still bloody) and thus revealing her feelings for him. The scene concludes with another great "hand tale", this time a firm embrace with tender touches.

7th meeting - at the public swimming pool/in the "forbidden" basement
While she observes the boy from outside the public swimming pool window and "watches over him" (see Wolfchild's article "A Tale told by Hands"), the attentive viewer can already see the upper edge of a pink shirt. Later in the basement it is revealed: The previous pink stripes of the cardigan have turned into a complete pink shirt - illustrating her growing affection and trust. Unfortunately, this meeting ends particularly unpleasant for both of them, but - as in real life - getting to know each other can have its pitfalls. He realizes that his girlfriend is apparently a "little more" different than the other kids.

8th meeting - in the girl's apartment
This meeting is special - on several levels. Comparable to her in the 6th meeting, the boy has now "lost" his father by quietly breaking up with him. It can be assumed that he left disillusioned and (disappointed) burned all bridges to come straight back to her. (Symbolizing her and his retreat from the indifferent outside world closer together.)
In the beginning the girl looks completely neglected, filthy and smells strange again. She wears a dirty sweater with barely visible pink stripes. We can see a nearly complete reset back to the beginning - representing her desperation and hopelessness about the previous disastrous meeting. She was clearly expecting the boy would turn away from her because of what had happened and that she would never see him again. Now he stands in front of her like nothing happened and she is unsure what to think of it. She has to re-assure herself of his intentions. Symbolically for her mistrust, she closes a glass door between both of them. And yet again he shows her unconditional loyalty: He directly asks about her being a vampire and is completely unshaken by her answers. Simultaneously another "hand scene" is shown - both reaching out for each other from the opposite sides of the glass door. Convinced, she finally lets him through to her side. Right after, she puts on a scarlet sweater - this is the first time her red theme is changing and intensifying within a meeting. It represents not only her restored trust and the joy of having him back but also her growing affection. His progress in gaining her trust could also be illustrated with the magical puzzle-egg - he cracked the hard shell with just his fingertip and is on his way to reaching her innermost being.

9th meeting - in the boy's apartment
For dramaturgical reasons, the girl briefly wears a light blouse, because blood would be hardly visible on a scarlet sweater. This is almost certainly an exception, a compromise the director had to make for the following scene. To compensate, he shows her at the start in a visible happy mood to prevent possible irritations for the attentive viewer.
Through his careless actions, the boy unintentionally and “visibly” hurts the girl (by not inviting her in). According to the director, this is her second "sacrifice" to show him that she is indeed different and that she is serious and trusts him. The boy saves her and is deeply shocked by the consequences of his behavior. He embraces her for the second time - as gratitude for her trust, as an apology and as an affirmation of their friendship. He realized that she is vulnerable to him and that he (despite her superhuman abilities) bears responsibility for her - an important lesson. His question "Who are you?" is immediately answered by her "I am like you."
This point is apparently particular important to the director and i also think we need to clarify this in more depth, so here is a short digression:
Many viewers apparently think the boy is just a manipulated freak, a replacement for her old companion, who will later fetch blood for her. This believe is most likely nourished by the now following, misunderstood dialogue: "I don't kill people." - "No. But you would murder if you could. To get revenge. Right?" - "Yes" - "Oskar, I have to do it." - etc.
Here we have to be very careful. The wording is a little unfortunate. It is not about the "killing" at all! It's about the "external compulsion" that both have in common and what connects them. His statement is only true insofar as he has his revenge fantasies forced upon him from his torturers (as a direct reaction to his humiliation). Just as she, as a consequence of her instinct for self-preservation, is forced to kill in order to survive. That means: without the external use of force on him, he would never ever thinking of hurting a fly let alone attacking someone with his knife or collecting murder articles. The same applies - of course - for the girl. Both are victims/products of a cruel world. I can't stress this enough. Back to the meeting.
The mind-meld scene follows - symbolic for his final initiation into her past and vampiric nature. She changes her blood-soaked blouse for a red dress which now covers her entire body for the first time - the red theme not only remains, it intensifies again for the second time within one scene. And we can already guess what that means: From now on the two belong together, they trust each other, friendship becomes love.

10th meeting - in the girl's apartment
After saying silently goodbye to his mother, (which again shows him shifting away from an indifferent world towards the girl) he leaves and comes back to his girlfriend that same evening and stays with her.
Before she can be killed in her sleep by a vengeful man the next morning, he protects her by waking her up, although he apparently intended to kill or attack the man with his knife, but then lets it go.
Here we touch that presumption for another time: "The boy is a freak and only the successor to her older follower, whom she manipulates and uses to get her blood later." I believe this is the reason why the happy ending of the film is unsatisfactory for many viewers since it is assumed that she will remain twelve years old forever but the boy will grow older therefore be demoted to being a simple blood collector (sooner or later).
This conjecture is directly refuted in two short but important scenes:
After the boy witnesses the death of the man due to the superhuman strength of his girlfriend, he demonstratively throws away his knife. The very knife with which he has so often acted out his revenge fantasies. He trembles all over and is shocked by the sight of the - very real - dead man and he realizes that he could never do something like that himself in his life. A little while later in his room, he does not cut the murder articles out of the newspaper as he usually did, but after a quick glance leaves the scissors and paper untouched on the table. All this has suddenly become completely uninteresting to him.
He finally realized that his unspeakable fantasies of violence were a product based solely on his torture by his hated "schoolmates". In the face of death and in comparison to his love for the girl, they have mutated into pathetic, unworthy little figures. Through his time with her, he has understood, he has learned, he has grown and is no longer afraid of them. They tormented him in order to rise above him. He will not waste another second on them or on his fantasies of revenge. At this moment his character undergoes a remarkable development.
There follows a surprise for all of those who thought the girl's red theme could not get any better. Additionally to her red dress, now her mouth, face and hands are covered in blood. And of course this circumstance also has its symbolism: If there were any doubts left - they are gone now. There is nothing left to say or to prove. Love reigns supreme. Trust is absolute. And to show it, the girl hugs the boy for the first time.
The film could be over now and nothing would be missing. We are at the dramatic climax of the movie. But unfortunately our heroes look very depressed and that does not bode well: the girl has to flee and says goodbye to the boy. A catastrophe for both of them and their relationship. What follows is one of the best (farewell) kisses in film history (and i have to agree with the director - again).

11th (final) meeting - the indoor public swimming pool
This last meeting differs from the others in various ways and requires a prior recapitulation of the film in principle.
The reader has probably noticed by now that we have so far primarily dealt with the girl and her visual changes over the course of the narrative. One reason for this is that her changes are more subtle and quiet and therefore easy to overlook. Another reason is that they are closely linked to the core scenes and thus make it easier to list them in an orderly manner and evaluate them at the same time. The most important reason, however, is that she is the actual (secret) center of the plot. How do I come to this conclusion? Well, since their first meeting, the boy's world has revolved around "his" girl. And as already noted, the film is mostly told from his point of view. Ergo, he and the plot inevitably keep coming back to her.
We know quite a lot about the girl by now, she goes through a gradual development of feelings and trust towards the boy, but what about him? Isn't it time to say something about his development? Actually, we don't really need to anymore. Most of the important facts have been already mentioned in conjunction with the girl. Let's look at the remaining missing pieces:
The boy's development and portrayal is a bit more complex than that of the girl. This is due to the different thematic nature of the characters and the way the film is viewed from the boy's perspective. While she is the monolithic focal point of the plot, the goal of his desires, the boy is the malleable part, he is the one who gains experience, whose character changes and develops.
There are various scenes and individual episodes that show his background and his decisions quite explicitly, so there is hardly any difficulty in following his development:
The school scenes show the humiliation by his "classmates". Later, he begins (after encouragement from her) to empower himself and successfully defend himself against the attacks of the troublemakers.
The parent scenes show his problems at home and his unsuccessful attempts to (re)connect with his father and mother. Later he finally breaks away, first from his father, later from his mother. This represents the level of his despair and disappointment with the world but at the same time his determination and intentions towards the girl.
And here we come to the enigma about his feelings towards the girl. We see what he sees, we hear what he hears (by the way, the sound design in the film is superb) but we cannot feel what he feels, we cannot know what he is thinking. The director has to somehow "show" us what is going on inside him. With the girl he does this with the aforementioned "color code", so we are always up to date, like, with a charging station.
With regard to the boy's classmates, parents and teachers, the emotional status is clear and relatively static: Hatred, Rejection, Indifference. But there is no direct reference to his "developing" feelings for the girl, aside from his kindness towards her and his embraces. One could now assume that her "red shift" applies to both of them or that his visual development in contrast to his environment is indirectly reflected in his feelings for the girl (like the separation from his parents). But nothing really adds up that way. And the director remains silent - or is he not?
Right from the beginning he was portraying the boy as the more proactive part in this relationship: he kept asking her in the first meeting, he went out first and brought the cube in the second, he again kept asking her and offered her the cube in the third, he brought the morse code, he let her know intimate details and called out for her to play with him in the fourth, (he started to knock on her back in the bulleribock scene), he offered her candy in the fifth and was unimpressed by her question, he asked her to become his girlfriend and shattered her doubts in the sixth, he offered her blood brotherhood in the seventh, he returned unshaken and shattered her doubts again in the eighth, he didn't run after he was shown her real nature and finally knew for sure that she was definitively not a girl in the ninth, he saved her and stayed with her even after he witnessed death in the tenth meeting. This is a lot to take in for a twelve year old, yet here he stands by her side. What is the matter with this kid? He is like "all-in".
Well now, i believe the boy is playing a rather unique role. He is (also) playing our role - the audience's (since we see everything from his point of view anyway). Of course the director can't know what each of us is feeling, but he can pretty much guess that everyone of us (except maybe some jerks - just kidding) loves Eli - because he made her the epicenter and most likable character in the movie. All he has to do now is let the boy (innocent, lonely, hurt, live-affirming) meet with her. With just two encores: He gives him an unwavering believe in her humanity and unconditional trust. For this reason i believe the boy is almost instantly enthralled by her and makes up his mind very, very early on. But the director leaves that decision to each one of us.
The girl on the other hand has everything but that: Trust. She is kind of superhuman, the king of the hill, she is perfect. The only thing she longs for is exactly what the feeble and vulnerable boy is searching for himself: Affection, Friendship, Trust, Love. In that matter they are equal. This is where they complement each other. They form a perfect whole. The biggest difference between them (and her predicament): she lost her trust a long time ago, while he has it in abundance and more: he even seems to surpass her with his moral principles as one can guess from the 8th meeting: She is afraid to upset him and kind of lies when he asks about the stolen money. And exactly that, the little lie, annoys him most because it taints her - his most precious.
Maybe the boy even reminds her of her past Self: hurt and tortured by bullies until she lost faith in humanity, now she is a scared and wary little creature with but a spark of hope. She likes and wants to believe in him but needs time to decide if he is, in fact, the right one to let in. Back to the finale in the indoor swimming pool.

As mentioned before, this meeting is different in some ways from the previous ones. Let's first look at the initial situation. The boy stands at the window and has to watch his love disappear. This is the low point for him in this story, it can't get any worse. All his hopes and wishes have burst like a bubble, collapsed like a house of cards. He is saddened to death, devastated. He stands at the window with empty hands, just like at the beginning, and the iconic hand scene follows again, with the same symbolism. His feeling of despair is even stronger, because he has to bear the loss, because he knows that there is actually someone out there who is perfect for him and that he will never see her again.

We all know what happens next. Through betrayal, he is alone and at the mercy of an enemy he cannot defeat. The moment he realizes that he decides not to give his opponents the satisfaction of his torment, but to make it quick. Mind you, he does not surrender to his fate, but rather consciously decides to end it here and now. His voluntary approach to the chief thug and later staying submerged on his own makes this clear.

Now I can already hear how the fictional audience is trying to dissuade him from doing this. Of course, none of us wants him to die because of such madness.
But anyone who thought that the dramatic climax of the last meeting could not be topped is now mistaken: Because at this point the story becomes downright mythical.

The boy knows that there is nothing left for him in this world. He has chosen this very girl. They are a perfect match. They are meant for each other. Without her his life is meaningless.
And after everything he has experienced with and learned from her, there is no going back to the role of victim. He is not afraid of death anymore - on the contrary, he kind of welcomes it.
Willingly he lets himself be submerged under water and stays there, even after no longer held by force. His heroine has to pull him back into the realm of the living and like that he is virtually reborn.
He has given her - unknowingly - his final proof of Love and she has fulfilled her promise to him. (Most likely she was even watching over him the whole time - like at the beginning of the 7th meeting.)
The long glances at each other in happy silence mean: Everything's clear now, they will never part again.

An attempt to interpret this last meeting from a real point of view will probably fail. Of course, one could try to squeeze it into a logic real-world model in some way, but what would the result be like?
If we take a closer look at the narrative arc, we are immediately struck by similarities to the classic fairy tale scheme so we are obviously on the right track. Let's try to explain the whole story - and with it this last meeting - with a fairy tale analogy.
First of all, we have our two main characters: the noble and steadfast prince and the enchanted princess against the backdrop of a threatening, dark winter forest inhabited by thugs. In our case, however, it is not the prince who has to travel through the country to find his happiness; happiness comes to him in the form of the princess. And not only are the circumstances reversed, the two main characters themselves also have partially mixed-up characteristics. He is noble, good and pure of heart, but at the same time weak, frightened and in need of help himself. She, on the other hand, is strong and brave and we have the indistinct suspicion that she will be the one to pick him up at the happy ending and gratefully carry him into her castle. At the same time, however, she is trapped in her curse and needs his help.
The plot is, as in the classic fairy tales, straightforward and direct: Before the prince can ask for the hand of his beloved, he has to pass seven tests. Fortunately for him, he doesn't have to slay dragons or win tournament fights, but is given tasks that are exactly his area of ​​expertise. He is tested on his best qualities: Trust, Steadfastness, Loyalty, Justice, Generosity, Honesty. In a classic fairy tale this would be the part where the champion is on his way to solve his quests and - on the way - collects useful items or meets new companions. In our case he gains experience, courage, self-esteem and the princess' trust.
The tests themselves are represented by their meetings, starting after the third where the girl (we remember) is in fact depicted as an exultant little "princess" on her throne sending her "champion" on his way. He masters all of them with flying colors, the princess can hardly believe it, her jaw is dropping. But just as she is about to take him home, the tables turn again.
This narrative approach as a form of tension build-up has many examples in classical fairy tales: the hero's prize is within reach, when out of the blue (perhaps as revenge for his nerdy 100% results) he is given another task that he cannot possibly solve (e.g. the princess is kidnapped or transformed and the hero is blackmailed into completing another errand). Exactly that happens: The princess is taken away and he is forced to face a gang of thugs alone in order to get her back.
Evil seems to triumph over the Good. That's what the final meeting is all about. The little prince knows that he can't do anything here. Steadfast and with (uncovered by his former tests!) tremendous courage, he faces his certain demise. And here, too, there is a mix-up of the classic fairy tale roles - instead of overpowering his opponents with a trick or a magical object as usual, he is freed by his sweetheart at the last moment. Her curse has been lifted and both disappear gleeful into the sunset. And to confirm it, the director shows it in the epilogue.
So what about the ... "Hold on. Wait a minute, not so fast!" - can the baffled audience be heard now - "Happy Ending? Curse lifted? But the girl is still a vampire!" Of course she is. That was never the issue here. But I believe most of us knew that by now.

So what about the meaning? Is there a message in all of this? Maybe just as simple as this: With friends you don't have to face your fears alone and even better - they will disappear and turn into fun.

The epilogue on the train, which in words simply means: "And they lived happily ever after.", is described by the director as the true (happy) ending. Their separation being the first "fake ending" and the end in the indoor swimming pool the second "fake ending". Each could work on its own, depending on how you want to look at it. He leaves us a lot of room for interpretation in this regard.



The end and beyond

The happy ending as an "ideal" should not be considered from a real perspective - and now we need to come back to the film category - but as what it is: a fantasy/fairy tale ending. We remember: happily ever after - and that's that. Fairy tales always and everywhere end well. A clear distinction must be made here. In a fairy tale world in which vampires exist, there can also be other "miracles". In this world, (by all means) two twelve-year-olds can escape unhindered and take their lives into their own hands - into big adventure.

What are vampires if not so-called "miracles" or "living artifacts", comparable to a djinn, troll, dwarf or giant? They burn in sunlight, can grow wings or claws as needed, can live to an infinite age, etc. pp. If we imaginary transport such an artifact into our world (which in principle almost always happens in relevant fantasy/horror/science fiction stories), there will inevitably be distortions with the real laws of nature, with the real system. We don't even want to start with the extent to which "Aladdin's magic lamp" violates the law of conservation of energy or the recently so popular time travel violates the first law of thermodynamics. It is enough to imagine what would happen to our world if there really were vampires: within a very short time we would all be vampires ourselves, the empirical plague and epidemic models are clear on this ...
And what in the world could be more cruel than to create a twelve-year-old girl - with humanistic and moral principles, mind you! - and have her commit murder for 200 years in order to ensure her own survival. It would result in an almost endless vicious cycle of murder/guilt/self-reproach/suicidal thoughts/renewed hunger for this poor creature! That would be the real horror, if one were to take this fantasy seriously and for real. Far more gruesome than all the atrocities and murders depicted combined. So, we can see that a fairy tale variation only makes sense as long as one considers it to be as that (or at least keeps focus on the important story elements). But as soon as one starts to measure everything in scientific terms and by moral standards (i.e vampires doing vampirely things), huge problems will arise. But why then, one may ask, are we writing fantasy tales at all, if it's just thin air? Well, in the best case it is a good 'tool' to carve-out and show philosophical problems or human conditions by creating special situations which the heroes have to deal with (like under a magnifying glass) and of course finally to convey a message, a lesson. To create complete perfect logical imaginary worlds is near to impossible and irrelevant at the same time. Every author has to rely (to a certain extent) up on the common sense of his readership to distinguish the important content of his work from the rest. In this sense, and as a peace offering to all the grumpy spoilsports that won't let go of their iron logic, we can even see the "Happy Ending" from a realistic perspective but just in metaphoric terms of course: The boy is on his own now, but probably not for long, as the sunny outside world suggests and life goes on like the moving train. With him he will always carry his sweet childhood memories symbolized by the box at his side.

From a fairy tale perspective, there are many conceivable solutions for our happy couple: She turns her loved one into a vampire too and they are vampirizing together, happily ever after for all eternity. Or she finds a "vampire healing potion" at the druid shop around the corner or the nearest research institute develops one. There are no limits to imagination. Why many people lack exactly that imagination at this very point (after all, they have been approving of the "vampire" inventiveness of the script throughout the entire film) and are so determined to predict a pessimistic future for our two little heroes is beyond me.

Well, now how to end this little essay better then with the messages of screenwriter and director:
Don't pour acid over your face. Don't make movies with cats. Be nice to each other.

[gkmoberg1]

And i thought: well why not contribute a little?

Greetings @Deitz! Glad you are here. Yes, contributions welcome ... and what a beautiful start.

I did not see that link anywhere here. Maybe it is of interest: https://www.svenskfilmdatabas.se/en/ite ... emid=63205#

Thank you!

...

I'll double back to much of this.

Terrific separation fairy tale story. Much has been written here about the ending(s) .. contemplations of where the movie real-world/adventure-world story ends and only a fairy tale continuation exists, or whether all has been fairy tale throughout.

Well, now how to end this little essay better then with the message of the screenwriter and director:
Don't pour acid over your face. Don't make movies with cats. Be nice to each other.

Yes - all good advice.

[PeteMork]

This is one of the most detailed analyses of LTROI I’ve read in a long time. Your description of their developing love even brought a familiar lump to my throat.
I agree with almost all of what you’ve said, but one small paragraph under “The end and beyond” struck me as pivotal:

From a fairy tale perspective, there are many conceivable solutions for our happy couple: She turns her loved one into a vampire too and they are vampirizing together, happily ever after for all eternity. Or she finds a "vampire healing potion" at the druid shop around the corner or the nearest research institute develops one. There are no limits to imagination. Why many people lack exactly that imagination at this very point (after all, they have been approving of the "vampire" inventiveness of the script throughout the entire film) and are so determined to predict a pessimistic future for our two little heroes is beyond me.

There are so many clues throughout the story that prove their love is pure and genuine i.e., in the scene when no one is watching and Eli has nothing to prove to anyone, she kneels on Hakan's bed and puts her hand gently on the wall between their rooms.
I too, can’t (or refuse to) see a dark future for them. In fact, I spent a few years writing some FF here on the site—over 1000 pages--and pretty much covered all your suggested endings…plus a few more.

And welcome to the forum!

[Dietz]

Hello guys, thanks for having me. It feels good to be here.
I was reading some posts throughout the many topics and am impressed by the scope of discussions going on about every aspect of the lore. Especially in the months and years following the release of the original movie this site was apparently raving. There was even one big fan, from Canada if i remember correctly, who visited the filming and book locations in Sweden. It is nice to see people getting inspired by a piece of art. And that's it's purpose after all. But nothing compares to experience it yourself. It triggers an euphoria-like state - an explosion of emotions and thoughts which, in many cases, is followed by subsequent ingenuity - as can be seen by the size of the fan fiction forum.

Thank you @gkmoberg1 for your comment on fairy tales. If you are a little interested in literary theory then try "The Philosophy of Chance" by Stanisław Lem. It's absolutely hiddeous. Yes, you can't read two pages without taking a break. He was bascically a Genius living like a hermit - you can tell by his writing style. So maybe better don't. But one could make 30 books out of this one.

And Thanks to you as well @PeteMork, i feel appreciated. That scene you mentioned is indeed a prime example of what film art can accomplish. How to convey a message with minimal means. Outstanding.

I am in the process of redacting my text, so there will be some changes, i still can't leave it like that, not yet anyway. There is still typos, wrong phrasing and don't get me started about my english. (Sometimes it's like - really? Dietz, what have you been thinking. Let's throw this passage here into the translator once more.) But also and more importantly there are still some points i need to think over or even change. For instance the figure of Hakan is of course not her "father". He's just a minion, a tool - at least in the movie, worse in the book from what iv'e heard.
Or Oskar and Eli. And i was scratching my head a long time over this. They are not representing two opposite parts at all, in fact they are quite alike. At the moment i tend to think they are nearly identical, with one big difference: Eli is the result of an Oskar that was bullied one time to often. Yes, i think that could work.

Cheers from Dietz

[intrige]

I will come back to this later! But I can already feel this is gonna be good

[gkmoberg1]

I am in the process of redacting my text, so there will be some changes, i still can't leave it like that, not yet anyway. There is still typos, wrong phrasing and don't get me started about my english. (Sometimes it's like - really? Dietz, what have you been thinking. Let's throw this passage here into the translator once more.)

Don't beat yourself up over it. I'm a certified klutz at getting things backwards half the time... Might be rather interesting if you do a reply against your initial posting, trim down to the section you want to rethink or restate and then build an entry on why you're reconsidering something.

But also and more importantly there are still some points i need to think over or even change. For instance the figure of Hakan is of course not her "father". He's just a minion, a tool - at least in the movie, worse in the book from what I've heard.

To me, Håkan (in the film) serves the role of mentor who supports the protagonist. This is from the classic "The Hero's Journey" story architecture. In this, The Mentor serves to support the protagonist and then to step aside in order for the protagonist to proceed with their quest. (See The Significance of the Mentor in the Hero's Journey for a better explanation.) --- Yet for LtROI this gets applied in an inverted manner - as the story is much like a broken fairy tale.

I'll try explain by way of an example: In the movie Star Wars, the character "Old Ben Kenobi" is the mentor for Luke Skywalker. Old Ben instructs Luke in the ways of The Force and supports him. But Old Ben sacrifices himself. In doing so, he leaves the adventure path open to Luke to continue and move from novice to master.

Applying this to LtROI, "The Mentor" is inverted: Håkan is a faux mentor. He fails, rather than succeeds. He intends to support protagonist Eli but fails. He has no capability of being a mentor ... He is not a vampire and expresses no capability for leading Eli. In fact, he's not capable of much other than asking for forgiveness ("Förlåt!"). Yet his passing is required for the story to advance. His demise leaves Eli free to proceed with her (using the feminine form of referring to Eli) quest.

... of course you may disagree.

[Dietz]

Hello gkmoberg1 and thanks again for your input.
Yes, I like to see it that way too and probably you are right. The film apparently doesn’t follow the book in showing him in any malicious way, that’s a good thing. One may even feel sorry for him. And as everything focuses on our lovely pair – everything else must pale.
Important for me was more how the girl is thinking about him, what she feels. The film is somewhat vague about it but gives us clues. The two most important ones being her touching his cheek like she pities him, the other one her watching him falling to his death without grief, but more like loosing a cigarette lighter and not a good one at that.

Regarding the corrections, I see your point but due to the coherent nature of this article I really like to have everything in one place. Just a few things to add.

Cheers from Dietz

[Dietz]

I admittedly posted the article a little premature. I myself wasn't yet clear about some important aspects of the story, just realized that later. For instance since I was entangled in the more worldly relationship of our two little ones for a time, it took me a while to figure out my thoughts about the finale because i had completely "forgotten" the fairy tale view. I actually needed to read my own intro to remind me, phew. Noting you hilarious post-counters you surely experienced something like that yourself already. I can imagine you've discussed this movie in length and made up your minds about it back in the days. Thank you for letting me have my little adventure with this "review" on your forum.
Please let me know about any translation errors. I think it's pretty much finished by now, maybe i will change some words and phrases to give it more grip but eventually i have to let go of my "baby" - 'sniff'. I will be around in case you'd like to discuss things. Actually i would be interested in these other long reviews PeteMork mentioned as well. There should be a thousand different interpretations out there, just to find them ...
Anyway i do hope your, our, site gets increased attention during the upcoming 20th movie anniversary and with it maybe even some more ideas.

Cheers from Dietz

[Dietz]

Just to add a little on the matter although i am probably talking mostly to myself here, after all - this movie happened a long time ago and the forum inevitably simmers down to a few admirable die-hard survivors.

Some "problems" i faced when writing the review:

The role of Håkan - not because i was particularly interested in him, but to try and grasp the girls feelings after his decease when visiting the boy shortly after - thanks to gkmoberg1 for clearing my mind in this regard.
In an old discussion here someone imagined him as the "Mr. Bean of the Hit men". This is certainly true as a comedic aspect of his role in failing to support the girl. And one could expand on his character, but as for the film his role was only interesting in regard of showing his gruesome handiwork. His character - as with all other supports - had to stay indistinct as far as possible and only made visible as far as necessary as to support the main plot. Imagine how just one two-seconds-scene would rip open completely new layers to the whole movie: i.e showing him watching TV or playing cards together with the girl.
In that matter i have but just one point of criticism, even more so the director mentioned it in his commentary: the short scene showing the girl evidently morally hurt by the fatal results of her feeding upon humans (Jocke). That in fact is exactly such kind of two-seconds-scene which threatens to undermine the main plot by adding unnecessary and misleading layers to the film.
And as proof we just have to dig a little in this forum - endless and in my opinion moot discussions about the ethical impacts of being a vampire. Not that the director could have prevented this discussion from happening, but to support it - even if only unintentionally - by leaving this scene in the final film, was indeed a mistake.
If at all, Vampirism must be viewed as a "natural" phenomenon inside a fantasy. Like dragons breathing fire or witches being evil (most of the time anyway) or the cloak of invisibility makes .. things invisible. Vampires feed on blood - it's their very nature, there's nothing good or evil about it, like an eagle preying for the rabbit. And the whole problem disappears if we remove the innocent dead from the picture: vampires capable of feeding on animals, working at the blood bank or as full-time executioners, or more radically replacing vampirism entirely with a disease which requires a steady supply of medicine i.e. diabetes. It becomes a hoax with no moral meaning.

The two main characters - Initially i thought to show both as two static contrasting halves of a perfect whole and was pondering about the differences between them. In the beginning it was somehow clear to me: black/white, dirty/clean, strong/weak, frightened/brave ... but the more the story progressed the less i was convinced about my idea. To my consternation both began slowly to change: the girl became cleaner - the boy stronger, the girl gained trust - the boy bravery.
And that is how i came to my conclusion that it is not their differences what makes them come together like magnets but their similarities: loneliness, disconnection from the world - and what both seek and only can find together: friendship, affection etc.

That's it for now. Maybe more later.
Cheers from Dietz

[PeteMork]

If at all, Vampirism must be viewed as a "natural" phenomenon inside a fantasy. Like dragons breathing fire or witches being evil (most of the time anyway) or the cloak of invisibility makes .. things invisible. Vampires feed on blood - it's their very nature, there's nothing good or evil about it, like an eagle preying for the rabbit. And the whole problem disappears if we remove the innocent dead from the picture: vampires capable of feeding on animals, working at the blood bank or as full-time executioners, or more radically replacing vampirism entirely with a disease which requires a steady supply of medicine i.e. diabetes. It becomes a hoax with no moral meaning.

One of the things that makes me love this film so much is that, to me at least, it isn't a fantasy at all. It's simply our real world with a JAL-defined vampire in it. There's no 'magic' at all as in the fantasy worlds with dragons, fairies, ogres, and witches. Eli has her strict physical abilities and limitations--as does Håkan, in the film at least. But even in the novel, there are strict, consistent, results for everything that happens, all of which could be plausible in the real world, thanks to the clever way in which it's presented to us by JAL. In other words, I could imagine an Eli wandering about quite comfortably in our reality.

But she's not in any way the vampire of lore, who has to sleep in a casket filled with earth from the homeland and doesn't value human life. She's clearly human enough to feel loneliness and finally, love. Thus, she's clearly still human enough to feel empathy for the people she has to kill to survive, unlike a tiger, whose nature is to kill 'innocent' animals for lunch and go on about his business, no good or evil attached... unless he begins killing people. If he does it for very long, he's hunted down and killed. Which of course, isn't 'good' for the tiger.

To me, If Eli hadn't cried after she killed Jocke, it would have been out of character. It also would have given support to those poor, misguided folks who think she was manipulating poor Oskar.

The two main characters - Initially i thought to show both as two static contrasting halves of a perfect whole and was pondering about the differences between them. In the beginning it was somehow clear to me: black/white, dirty/clean, strong/weak, frightened/brave ... but the more the story progressed the less i was convinced about my idea. To my consternation both began slowly to change: the girl became cleaner - the boy stronger, the girl gained trust - the boy bravery. And that is how i came to my conclusion that it is not their differences what makes them come together like magnets but their similarities: loneliness, disconnection from the world - and what both seek and only can find together: friendship, affection ect.

I agree completely with your conclusion here. There are so many clues in the film, many of which you enumerated in your thoughtful review above.
Again, thanks for posting. It's fun to rehash all these details again from a fresh, new perspective.